Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have different views but are the most honest and consistent politicians in the US Congress. I'd support them on their integrity more than their policies. Ron Paul being a libertarian is awesome though and best alligns with my views. Of course he has some quarks but he would be the best candidate imo.

"Isolationist" is not the right word to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy. Paul wants to advance free trade, diplomatic talks and so forth but he just doesn't want to interfere with government's internal affairs (i.e. have the CIA do something sketchy if there's a potential anti-US govt emerging), give out aid for the purposes of buying American weapons (e.g. Israel and Egypt) take sides during wars or start unnecessary wars. I agree with this policy. He fears the industrial-military complex which is a corrupt group in the US imo (i.e. blow up a bridge in Iraq and then have a defense contractor rebuild that bridge = transfer of wealth from taxpayer to industrial-military complex).

I agree with him on many economic policies such as lowering taxes, decreasing the role of gov't, dismantling welfare for the undeserved, etc. I disagree about bringing back the gold-standard and I do believe the govt should create a healthcare institution that competes against private companies. That doesn't mean it should be just subsidize everyone and cost $1 Trillion... it should be run as a business with as little loss as possible.

I sympathize with some of the concerns with Tea Partiers (Taxed Enough Already) although they also have some radical views. I don't like the role religion plays for them. Rick Perry wants to organize prayers in football stadiums to pray for the economy to become better and rid other woes for America lol. I also support gun rights as its in the Constitution. I think the media sensationalizes them by just showing the Palin or Bachman nuts. At the end of the day they're just people who want less government in their lives. They don't need all this govt support and want less taxes. Giving money to the gov't justifies it spending on pork projects, advancing the military, etc. Individuals can better allocate tax dollars than the government can. There's nothing crazy about the core "taxed enough already" message. Lower taxes, cut spending... look at the US debt, we can't afford to pay for what we are doing at the moment.

Many Republicans dislike Paul because a lot of them are essentially representatives for big corporations, the military sector, radical evangelicals, etc. A lot of them are not truly conservative... Bush spent more than Clinton in real terms. Ron Paul is a threat because he is the closest candidate to Reagan minus the Ronald's horrible foreign policy. If Romney gets the nod I think he's the lesser evil when measured to Obama. America is unfortunately moving towards a more socialist and planned economy state. Redistribution of wealth is increasing, therefore punishing the people who are advancing society and subsidizing those that aren't contributing as much. Of course there are anomalies and some rich people are greedy pigs and some deserving people are poor because of bad luck. It averages out in the end. Half of Americans don't pay any income taxes and this is a crunch on the middle-class.